Certified copy requirement in insolvency appeals is mandatory, but exemption may be granted on sufficient cause when properly sought.

Under the insolvency appellate regime, a certified copy must ordinarily accompany an appeal, but the Tribunal may grant exemption on sufficient cause shown through a proper application. Where exemption applications were pending and reasons were found adequate, the defect was treated as curable and those appeals were allowed to proceed subject to later filing of the certified copy. By contrast, appeals filed without any exemption application could not claim automatic waiver of the filing requirement, and those appeals were held not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the requirement of filing a certified copy with an appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 could be waived by granting exemption under the appellate rules where exemption applications were filed. (ii) Whether appeals filed without any application seeking exemption from filing the certified copy were maintainable.

Issue (i): Whether the requirement of filing a certified copy with an appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 could be waived by granting exemption under the appellate rules where exemption applications were filed.

Analysis: The appellate rules required an appeal to be accompanied by a certified copy, but the Tribunal also had power to exempt compliance, extend time, and act to secure substantial justice. The decision under the insolvency regime made the certified copy requirement mandatory, yet it did not exclude the Tribunal's discretion to grant exemption on sufficient cause shown through a proper application. The Tribunal held that where exemption applications were pending and the stated reasons were sufficient, the defect was capable of being cured and the appeals could proceed subject to filing of the certified copy within the time directed.

Conclusion: In favour of the appellants; the exemption applications in the specified appeals were allowed and those appeals were not rejected on the certified-copy objection.

Issue (ii): Whether appeals filed without any application seeking exemption from filing the certified copy were maintainable.

Analysis: The Tribunal distinguished between appeals where exemption had been sought and appeals where no such application was filed at all. It held that the appellate rules did not permit automatic waiver of the certified-copy requirement, and in the absence of any exemption application the litigant could not unilaterally dispense with compliance. The mandatory character of the filing requirement, as explained by the Supreme Court, controlled those matters where no exemption was requested.

Conclusion: Against the appellants; the three appeals filed without any exemption application were held not maintainable and were dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The maintainability objection was partly accepted. Exemption was granted in the appeals where proper applications were filed, while the appeals lacking any exemption request failed at the threshold.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the insolvency appellate regime, a certified copy is ordinarily required with the appeal, but the Tribunal may grant exemption on sufficient cause through a proper application; however, no automatic waiver is available where no exemption is sought.

---